I think a lot of the problems with the "bad results" from HCQ that we've heard recently have come from cases in which it was given to hospitalized patients who are in or sliding into bad shape.

That's not where that medication allegedly shines the best in this. I'm anxious to see trials where it was primarily given early in the disease process.

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

I think a lot of the problems with the "bad results" from HCQ that we've heard recently have come from cases in which it was given to hospitalized patients who are in or sliding into bad shape.

That's not where that medication allegedly shines the best in this. I'm anxious to see trials where it was primarily given early in the disease process.

---

The problem with this line of thinking assumes we can identify people early enough in the infection cycle without widespread testing, which is both difficult to do, if not impossible with the testing resources we have at hand.

It's a fundamental logic gap in the "HCQ early and often" mantra. It needs to be supported as a low dose preventative, if not of infection if of hospitalization in that world.

culdeus said:

---

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

I think a lot of the problems with the "bad results" from HCQ that we've heard recently have come from cases in which it was given to hospitalized patients who are in or sliding into bad shape.

That's not where that medication allegedly shines the best in this. I'm anxious to see trials where it was primarily given early in the disease process.

---

The problem with this line of thinking assumes we can identify people early enough in the infection cycle without widespread testing, which is both difficult to do, if not impossible with the testing resources we have at hand.

It's a fundamental logic gap in the "HCQ early and often" mantra. It needs to be supported as a low dose preventative, if not of infection if of hospitalization in that world.

---

Precisely why our testing situation is an abject failure. For the most part, unless you are bad enough to go to the hospital, it does you absolutely ZERO good to go get tested.

I'm sure that's a large part of why our testing numbers suck... a lot of people just don't see the benefit to getting tested. For them, going to get tested to give the stat geeks something to look at isn't worth getting out of the house, to a drive thru site, where a swab is stuck through their nose to the back of the throat. If there isn't a treatment benefit for people, why on earth would they go do that? "We need to test a lot of people" isn't a good answer to that question. You're asking people to go through a lot of nonsense, for zero personal benefit if you aren't going to get them results back earlier than 5-10 days, when the best current treatment hope is largely ineffective.

In these studies, why could you not start people exhibiting clear symptoms of Covid-19 onHCQ/Azithro at the same time as you took a test? Then kick out the subjects whose test came back negative. Then follow the people who actually tested positive to see how the drug worked to prevent hospitalization.

Worst case scenario, some folks with basic flu got 5 days of HCQ/Azithro

culdeus said:

---

No. The cheerleaders for hcq have mostly gone quiet waiting for someone, anyone to support it with a good trial.

Convalescent plasma hype also seems waning.

All the hard to pronounce ones seem scarce, so may as well be snake oil.

Most of the talk now seems surrounding methods to get O2 in more effectively. It's been a bad two weeks for treatment path jmo, would love to be shown we have a handle on this.

---

Funny how it only takes a few weeks for most people to begin to understand science is a real thing in medical treatment.

All of you comparing HCQ to snake oil, I hope you stand by your principles and refuse the drug, if you get sick.

This strawman argument is all they have left

Drifter. said:

---

Bull ***** I'm very interested in seeing the studies on the drug given earlier in the disease, not just once it's severe with hospitalization. And you never did answer my question, would you take the drug today if you were cv positive?

---

Why would one person's willingness to take a drug if they were CV positive somehow legitimize the drug's usage as effective?

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

culdeus said:

---

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

I think a lot of the problems with the "bad results" from HCQ that we've heard recently have come from cases in which it was given to hospitalized patients who are in or sliding into bad shape.

That's not where that medication allegedly shines the best in this. I'm anxious to see trials where it was primarily given early in the disease process.

---

The problem with this line of thinking assumes we can identify people early enough in the infection cycle without widespread testing, which is both difficult to do, if not impossible with the testing resources we have at hand.

It's a fundamental logic gap in the "HCQ early and often" mantra. It needs to be supported as a low dose preventative, if not of infection if of hospitalization in that world.

---

Precisely why our testing situation is an abject failure. For the most part, unless you are bad enough to go to the hospital, it does you absolutely ZERO good to go get tested.

I'm sure that's a large part of why our testing numbers suck... a lot of people just don't see the benefit to getting tested. For them, going to get tested to give the stat geeks something to look at isn't worth getting out of the house, to a drive thru site, where a swab is stuck through their nose to the back of the throat. If there isn't a treatment benefit for people, why on earth would they go do that? "We need to test a lot of people" isn't a good answer to that question. You're asking people to go through a lot of nonsense, for zero personal benefit if you aren't going to get them results back earlier than 5-10 days, when the best current treatment hope is largely ineffective.

In these studies, why could you not start people exhibiting clear symptoms of Covid-19 onHCQ/Azithro at the same time as you took a test? Then kick out the subjects whose test came back negative. Then follow the people who actually tested positive to see how the drug worked to prevent hospitalization.

Worst case scenario, some folks with basic flu got 5 days of HCQ/Azithro

---

People aren't going to get tested because the bar for getting tested is practically be on your way into the hospital for a stay to get the test. People are calling the doc, saying they have symptoms, the doc is telling them to go get tested and then they are getting rejected because they don't meet one portion of the criteria. Sure, a lot of that is testing resources.

It sounds like there are studies starting to happen around the efficacy of HCQ/Azithro early on in the process. That's the most no brainer study that should be happening right now. If we can prevent more people from ever getting to the point of hospitalization, that is a HUGE win.

bay fan said:

---

culdeus said:

---

No. The cheerleaders for hcq have mostly gone quiet waiting for someone, anyone to support it with a good trial.

Convalescent plasma hype also seems waning.

All the hard to pronounce ones seem scarce, so may as well be snake oil.

Most of the talk now seems surrounding methods to get O2 in more effectively. It's been a bad two weeks for treatment path jmo, would love to be shown we have a handle on this.

---

Funny how it only takes a few weeks for most people to begin to understand science is a real thing in medical treatment.

---

People understand science. People also understand a few weeks ago we're staring down the possibility of hospitals being completely overrun and the government is saying, well, hold on in using these drugs that have been around for decades and we already know the most common side effects. It's not like we were looking at using a drug just invented that had never had a human trial before.

People know studies have to be done. But people question things when resources are being withheld when you already have a pretty good idea of what they do and how they work in general.

Here's my big question. We had information from more trustworthy countries like SK regarding certain drugs. We know the associated risks with these drugs is pretty low. We're looking down a potential hospital crisis. Why could we have not said shouldn't we start running some real time parallel studies on people showing early symptoms and those in hospitals with these drugs to see if we can help ourselves out more quickly?

The answer to your big question is that's basically what we're doing.

Drifter. said:

---

Bull ***** I'm very interested in seeing the studies on the drug given earlier in the disease, not just once it's severe with hospitalization. And you never did answer my question, would you take the drug today if you were cv positive?

---

I would definitely refuse the medication given that it has already shown absolutely no benefit in hospitalized patients, and specifically showed no increased rate in viral clearance which is what its proponents state is its main benefit. Also, it has shown to have increased side effects like diarrhea and QT prolongation especially when combined with azithromycin. Nearly 10% of a study population that combined it with azithromycin had to stop taking it due to QT prolongation. I also have heard from a few toxicologists and cardiologists that state they have seen torsades de pointes patients that were on this combination. A rare possibility of death with a drug that has a very low possibility of benefit is not something I want to be using.

But my willingness to take the med has nothing to do with the debate of whether it is effective or not.

A big difference in treatment of the sickest 4 weeks ago c/w today is not intubating early for anyone needing more than nasal cannula O2. Non-rebreathers, oximizers, High flow nasal cannula O2 with surgical masks, O2 helmets (for those lucky to have them) and high level CPAP are being utilized more to avoid mechanical ventilation which may be detrimental.